RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

price (ALP) of interest chargeable in respect of share application money refunded by the AE by adopting fixed rate from Bloomberg database. 15. Erred in re-characterizing the transaction as being in the nature of loan financing on which interest is chargeable without appreciating that the amounts were refunded within 101 days due to business considerations. 16. Failed to appreciate

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

price (ALP) of interest chargeable in respect of share application money refunded by the AE by adopting fixed rate from Bloomberg database. 15. Erred in re-characterizing the transaction as being in the nature of loan financing on which interest is chargeable without appreciating that the amounts were refunded within 101 days due to business considerations. 16. Failed to appreciate

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

price (ALP) of interest chargeable in respect of share application money refunded by the AE by adopting fixed rate from Bloomberg database. 15. Erred in re-characterizing the transaction as being in the nature of loan financing on which interest is chargeable without appreciating that the amounts were refunded within 101 days due to business considerations. 16. Failed to appreciate

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

price (ALP) of interest chargeable in respect of share application money refunded by the AE by adopting fixed rate from Bloomberg database. 15. Erred in re-characterizing the transaction as being in the nature of loan financing on which interest is chargeable without appreciating that the amounts were refunded within 101 days due to business considerations. 16. Failed to appreciate

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

section\n92C while arriving at the ALP of the payment of royalty to Nil, the transfer pricing\nadjustment made by the TPO in respect thereof ought to be deleted.\n8. The Ld. CIT-DR vehemently argued and stated that the Royalty increasing year\nafter year.\nPayment of Royalty for the use of 'Vodafone' and 'Essar' Trademark and Trade\nname\nThe

VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand\Nshri Prabhash Shankar\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\N(Assessment Year: 2009-10)\Nm/S Vodafone Digilink Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income\Nlimited,\Ntax, Cir.17(1), New Delhi\Nc-48, Okhla Industrial Area,\Nphase-Ii, New Delhi-110 020\Npan: Aaaca3202D\Nappellant\Nrespondent\Nassessee By\N:\Nshri Percy J. Pardiwalla/Wshri\Nketan Ved\Nrespondent By\N:\Nms. Vatsala Jha (Pcit)\Ndate Of Hearing\N:\N23/12/2024\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N12/02/2025\Norder\Nper Anikesh Banerjee:\Ninstant Appeal Of The Assessee Was Filed Against The Order Of The Learned\Ndispute Resolution Panel-Ii, New Delhi-02 [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Drp') Passed Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act'),\Ndated21/11/2013 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The\Ndraft Assessment Order U/S 144C(1) R.W.S.143(3) Of The Actdated 28/03/2013 Of\Nthe Ld.Dcit, Circle-17(1), New Delhi (For Brevity The Ld. Ao).\N2\Nita No.1169/Mum/2014\Nvodafone Digilink Limited\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -\N“The Appellant Respectfully Submits That:\Non The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Dispute\Nresolution Panel -11. New Delhi (Drp\") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under\Nsection 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act\"), Partly Confirming The\Nadjustments Proposed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1)\Nnew Delhi ("Ao') In The Draft Assessment Order & The Learned Ao Has\Naccordingly Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With\Nsection 144C Of The Act.\Neach Of The Ground Is Referred To Separately, Which May Kindly Be Considered\Nindependent Of Each Other.\N1. On Amortization Of Revenue Based License Fee U/S 35Abb Of The Act\N1.

section\n92C while arriving at the ALP of the payment of royalty at Nil, the transfer pricing\nadjustment made by the TPO in respect thereof ought to be deleted.\n8. The Ld. CIT-DR vehemently argued and stated that the Royalty increasing year\nafter year.\nPayment of Royalty for the use of 'Vodafone' and 'Essar' Trademark and Trade\nname\nThe

DIMEXON DIAMONDS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 92C, the\nother method for determination of the arm's length price in relation to an\ninternational transaction or a specified domestic transaction shall be any\nmethod which takes into account the price which has been charged or paid, or\nwould have been charged or paid, for the same or similar uncontrolled\ntransaction, with or between non-associated enterprises

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO dissatisfied with the documentation maintained by the assessee, made ad hoc adjustment towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under

SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds No

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

pricing study report held its transaction with the Indian entities to be at arms length. 2.2 The Ld.TPO dissatisfied with the documentation maintained by the assessee, made ad hoc adjustment towards the international transaction of technical service and other transaction at 10% in the hands of the assessee. 2.3 On receipt of the order passed under

NESS DIGITAL ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NESS TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT LTD) ,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL/JT/DY/ASST.COMM. OF INCOME TAX/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.66,26,894 in relation to the international transaction of reimbursement of expenses received by the Appellant from the AE disregarding the fact that these expenses were primarily the liability of the AE and were incurred initially by the Appellant only for administrative convenience; 5. erred in not appreciating that in the aforesaid reimbursement of expenses

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015–16 and 2016–17 are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Unilever India Dcit Central Exports Limited, Circle-5(2), Unilever House, B. D. Vs. Room No. 427, 4Th Sawant Marg, Floor, Kautilya Chakala, Andheri Bhawan, C-41 To C- East, Sahar P & T 43, G Block, Bandra Colony, S. O. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 099 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaaci0991D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Phatarphekara/W Shri Harsh Shah & Shri Shreyas Sardesai, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2026

269,38,87,930/- (as per computation sheet Rs. 345,89,08,080/- as per order) 5. From the record, it is evident that these appeals arise in the second round of proceedings. In the first round, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had rejected the audited segmental accounts of the assessee and re-casted the segmental results by assuming

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA HOMES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

269/- added to the returned income and the amount of Rs.28,69,53,411/- being reduced from inventory on account of this TP adjustment) is directed to be deleted.\n\n3. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us by way of grounds as reproduced above.\n\n4. Before

LORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

Transfer Pricing Officer in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 92CA(1) of the Act for determination of arm’s length price in respect of assesse’s international transactions with associated enterprises. The TPO vide order u/s 92CA(3) dated 19.01.2015 has recommended adjustment of Rs.91,89,674/- in the arm’s length price of its international transaction with respect

UNILEVER INDIA EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

269,38,87,930 as against the Appellant's returned income of\nRs. 115,02,87,930 by making a transfer pricing addition of Rs.\n154,36,00,000 concerning the international transaction of export of\ngoods?\nExport of finished goods to Associated Enterprises:\n2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, orders

INDIANOIL ADANI VENTURES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "INDIAN OILTANKING LIMITED"),MUMBAI vs. ITO - 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

269 0.20% 12,027,421 (27,421) - 0.50% 8. 2008-09 22 7,538,139,584 0.25% 28,296,542 - -

GLOBAL HOSPITALITY LICENSING SARL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RANGE - 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhglobal Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Licensing Sarl Income Tax (I.T.) C/O Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17Th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Paras Savla Pratik Poddar Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das

269/– was assessed at ₹ 141,821,938/– and transfer pricing adjustment of ₹ 69,416,669/- was made. 013. Assessee preferred an objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel – I, Mumbai [ the Ld DRP] who passed direction on 05/9/2017 and rejected the objections of the assessee. Consequently, on 27/10/2017, the learned assessing officer passed a final assessment order u/s 143 (3) read

UPS ASIA GROUP PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT C0MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

Transfer Pricing Officer, the issues is covered by the coordinate bench‘s decision dated 29th January 2021 in the case of ADIT Vs Asia Today Limited, in ITA No 1878 & 1879/Mum/2008 for the assessment years 2002-03 & 2004-05. Learned representatives fairly accept that position. We see no reasons to take any view of the matter than the view taken

UPS ASIA GROUP PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTRNATIONAL TAXATION)-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

Transfer Pricing Officer, the issues is covered by the coordinate bench‘s decision dated 29th January 2021 in the case of ADIT Vs Asia Today Limited, in ITA No 1878 & 1879/Mum/2008 for the assessment years 2002-03 & 2004-05. Learned representatives fairly accept that position. We see no reasons to take any view of the matter than the view taken